These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

You know how some people like to claim most PVP happens in hisec?

Author
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#21 - 2013-04-25 19:43:13 UTC
.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#22 - 2013-04-25 19:43:40 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:

Actual hulls destroyed in numbers vs ISK would have been the goto graph.

This. ^

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Dave Stark
#23 - 2013-04-25 19:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
never mind me, i'm being stupid.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2013-04-25 19:58:10 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Captain Tardbar wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Seeing that Nullsec can produce such goods, maybe its not as bad off as people make it out to be.

What makes you think nullsec is producing these goods? You do realize that the vast majority of modules, ammunition, and ships are imported from highsec, right?

In addition, what makes you think there are more ships lost to pvp in highsec than in null?


I mean the carriers, dreadnaughts, and titans which cannot be made in high sec.

The graphs don't tell use values versus hi and null in terms of ammo and modules.

I am assuming the high values for nullsec are because of these high value ships being lost and has nothing to do with ammunition and modules.

If they want to show graphs on ammunition spent I suppose that could determine the other argument.

My main guess for PVP ships lost in hi-sec is from the Red versus Blue engagements. Those alone probaly have pretty high numbers, but I suppose I have no hard proof to show you other than the massive ship losses I see on the map every now and then. (Oh wow Dave Stark predicted I would say this but I suppose I clarified that I have no proof to show this).

Carriers and dreadnoughts are better off made in lowsec because of the abundance of NPC manufacturing there and relative ease of access. So that leaves titans and supercarriers to be made in lowsec.

That still doesn't support your point at all.

I didn't say anything about the graphs regarding ammo, modules, etc. You did by referring to total manufacturing capability. You said that the graphs obviously show that "nullsec can produce such goods" which is completely untrue.

You're also making unfounded assumptions that the graphs are higher for nullsec simply because our ship costs are higher. Not all of the ships we use are particularly expensive, and for those ships we use that are expensive we lose far less of them. Our biggest losses in fleets are generally things like battlecruisers, interdictors, other low cost stuff.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

FourierTransformer
#25 - 2013-04-25 20:00:05 UTC  |  Edited by: FourierTransformer
Graph doesn't say a whole lot tbh. Kills vs population density would have been a better metric. Or Isk destroyed v # of kills.

Some regions of lowsec are extremely active (e.g. black rise) while other regions have barley any kills e.g. tash murkon which has a near-empty lowsec. Same goes for 0.0, compare delve to omist.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2013-04-25 20:09:48 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/WzXjyuN.jpg

Whoops, there goes that theory. Turns out if you remove losses to rats, hisec comes in third.


More expensive ships makes the chart go up? Derp.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~

Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#27 - 2013-04-25 20:16:07 UTC
Be interested to see the graph in relation to PvP kills, rather than isk value. Its no-wonder nullsec leads the pack there, running around in their shiny fleets slamming capitals against eachother. Would pure PvP ship losses there still beat highsec?

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  

Setaceous
Nexus Prima
#28 - 2013-04-25 20:16:41 UTC
ITT: OP makes a mistaken knee jerk post in reaction to an issue that barely ever occurs. Never returns to thread.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2013-04-25 20:19:07 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
Be interested to see the graph in relation to PvP kills, rather than isk value. Its no-wonder nullsec leads the pack there, running around in their shiny fleets slamming capitals against eachother. Would pure PvP ship losses there still beat highsec?

Probably. No doubt if it were per-capita it would. Absolute, not entirely sure.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-04-25 20:20:28 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/WzXjyuN.jpg

Whoops, there goes that theory. Turns out if you remove losses to rats, hisec comes in third.

That's value, not numbers of hulls.

But it's still probably a correct call.


considering it's in terms of isk, wormholes being so low is reasonably surprising since they tend to fly around in reasonably blingy ships in comparison to other areas of the game.

although number of hulls would be interesting.

considering the TINY % of players that live in WHs, it's not that surprising.
if you were looking at isk loss per kill, id be willing to be WHs would be top of the list.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#31 - 2013-04-25 20:22:15 UTC
Interesting. I'm always being yelled at to go to low/null sec if I want "real" PVP.

OMG, THEY WERE RIGHT?!

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2013-04-25 20:25:08 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
considering the TINY % of players that live in WHs, it's not that surprising.
if you were looking at isk loss per kill, id be willing to be WHs would be top of the list.

Which goes to support the whole idea of wormhole space being a carebear haven.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-04-25 20:31:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Carriers and dreadnoughts are better off made in lowsec because of the abundance of NPC manufacturing there and relative ease of access. So that leaves titans and supercarriers to be made in lowsec.

That still doesn't support your point at all.

I didn't say anything about the graphs regarding ammo, modules, etc. You did by referring to total manufacturing capability. You said that the graphs obviously show that "nullsec can produce such goods" which is completely untrue.

You're also making unfounded assumptions that the graphs are higher for nullsec simply because our ship costs are higher. Not all of the ships we use are particularly expensive, and for those ships we use that are expensive we lose far less of them. Our biggest losses in fleets are generally things like battlecruisers, interdictors, other low cost stuff.


Well we could argue back and forth, but neither of us has statistical data to back outselves up other than what CCP provides and what they did provide doesn't show us whether or not what type of ships were lost. I suppose I was the one to assume that Null sec losses are higher because they have more expensive ships.

I suppose the data is all there on the kill boards but I don't have the technical know how to compile the data.

So I suppose I'm going to pull a George W Bush and go with my gut on this and say that if I didn't know any better I would guess the reason null sec has higher losses in isk value is becaues they fly more expensive ships.

That or gankers in hi-sec aren't doing their jobs well enough.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#34 - 2013-04-25 20:36:16 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Interesting. I'm always being yelled at to go to low/null sec if I want "real" PVP.

OMG, THEY WERE RIGHT?!

But without the details we've mentioned, it might only mean "Real expensive" PvP. P

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-04-25 20:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Well we could argue back and forth, but neither of us has statistical data to back outselves up other than what CCP provides and what they did provide doesn't show us whether or nto what type of ships were lost. I suppose I was the one to assume that Null sec losses are higher because they have more expensive ships.

Not only that, but you explicitly said that just because more hull value was lost in nullsec that somehow proves that nullsec has the manufacturing capability to support these losses. There's nothing about this data to support that assertion.

Captain Tardbar wrote:
I suppose the data is all there on the kill boards but I don't have the technical know how to compile the data.

That would definitely support or disprove your idea regarding how many ships were lost and average loss value per ship, but it still wouldn't say anything about production capability.

Captain Tardbar wrote:
So I suppose I'm going to pull a George W Bush and go with my gut on this and say that if I didn't know any better I would guess the reason null sec has higher losses in isk value is becaues they fly more expensive ships.

Well you don't know any better, so all it is is a guess.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#36 - 2013-04-25 20:41:14 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Interesting. I'm always being yelled at to go to low/null sec if I want "real" PVP.

OMG, THEY WERE RIGHT?!

But without the details we've mentioned, it might only mean "Real expensive" PvP. P


Doesn't really matter to me. A graph with lines on it won't actually change my choice of space to PVP in. I like my high sec cat and mouse games.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance

Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2013-04-25 20:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarah Schneider
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
Just means that most highseccers run around and pew in the Eve equivalent of Yugos while the nullsec crowd goes and pews with their Lamborghinis and Bugattis..

True. I fly my Lamborgini Talwars and Bugatti Caracals very often.


Captain Tardbar wrote:
So I suppose I'm going to pull a George W Bush and go with my gut on this and say that if I didn't know any better I would guess the reason null sec has higher losses in isk value is becaues they fly more expensive ships.

That or gankers in hi-sec aren't doing their jobs well enough.


  • Freighter ganks in hisec are more common than supers blown up in null (Titan kills are so rare than even one kill would pop up on blogs/eve news sites, so, you're likely not gonna miss any of these happening).
  • Bling PVE ship ganks/kills are more common than carrier/dread kills.
  • While T3s are very common doctrine in nullsec, expensive/faction battleships are a lot less than your average T1 BS, BC, Cruiser and frigs.

So, there you go... guess again.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave

Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-04-25 20:45:26 UTC
Well we don't have any proof that null sec has to import its goods from hi-sec other than null sec members saying they have to.

Can you post a link with imperical data proving to me that the majority of goods in null sec were manufactured in hi-sec?

I am pointing out the futility of this argument. I may have said things that were not backed by data, but I feel that its true.

I accept that the things you feel to be true are also not backed by data.

But I reserve the right to not believe you and I accept your right to not believe me either.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server

Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2013-04-25 20:47:17 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/WzXjyuN.jpg

Whoops, there goes that theory. Turns out if you remove losses to rats, hisec comes in third.


I would be more interested in seeing amount of kills...

It kind of speak for itself that the most expensive losses will be in null. Another quality test post.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2013-04-25 20:48:17 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Well we don't have any proof that null sec has to import its goods from hi-sec other than null sec members saying they have to.

Can you post a link with imperical data proving to me that the majority of goods in null sec were manufactured in hi-sec?

I am pointing out the futility of this argument. I may have said things that were not backed by data, but I feel that its true.

I accept that the things you feel to be true are also not backed by data.

But I reserve the right to not believe you and I accept your right to not believe me either.

Only CCP can answer that question. However, all I can say is this. Most, if not all of my (including most people I know) ships that I use for PVP were brought in from highsec. Apart from rifters and other T1 frigs and/or some T1 destroyers, all of them were brought in.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave